Op-Ed: Matt Kandrach: A state-led lawsuit is working against Trump’s American energy dominance
On the day his second term began, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” focused on driving American energy dominance through an “all-of-the-above” policy. This comprehensive approach encourages domestic exploration and production, ensures all regulatory requirements are grounded in clear law, and prohibits federal funding contrary to this important effort from being employed. However, a lawsuit filed by 11 state Attorneys General has the potential to run counter to President Trump’s pursuit of strengthening America’s energy industry by forcing their divestment from coal companies. Such a move would negatively affect the stock price of coal companies and limit their access to capital markets and harm the very industry that President Trump is seeking to support.
The lawsuit, filed last year by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, misfires, not because these companies are flawless, but because the facts and market realities don’t support the case.
As the leader of a free-market consumer advocacy group, I’ve supported the efforts of Republican Attorneys General to hold accountable asset managers who overstep by prioritizing ideological agendas over their fiduciary duty. Ensuring that financial firms don’t misuse their influence to push environmental, social, and governance (ESG) priorities in ways that harm consumers or violate their mandates is both reasonable and necessary. But, this lawsuit is inaccurate and could bring harm to consumers, the American energy market, and President Trump’s energy dominance policy goals.
The lawsuit alleges these firms manipulated energy markets and contributed to rising energy prices by limiting investment in traditional energy sources like coal. But, coal demand has been in steady decline for years, driven by simple economics. Cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner alternatives — like natural gas and renewables — are increasingly meeting our nation’s energy needs. Financial firms responding to those trends aren’t distorting the market; they’re following it.
President Trump’s energy policy isn’t about favoring one energy source over another. It’s about unleashing America’s full energy potential by allowing every source to compete on a level playing field. From oil and gas to wind and solar, the objective is to ensure the energy sector could meet growing consumer demand without the government or elected officials stepping in and picking winners and losers.
As consumer energy needs expand, we must welcome investments in all energy sources: fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, and emerging technologies that are not yet discovered or popular. Attempts to force capital to or away from specific sectors not only risks higher energy prices, but could also make our grid less reliable long-term.
To keep up with ever-increasing energy demand, we need to focus on incentivizing domestic energy investments in all forms to redevelop America’s aging infrastructure. As former U.S. Secretary of Energy and former Texas Governor, Rick Perry, pointed out in a piece earlier this year, “America faces a crisis of stalled infrastructure: pipeline projects, wind farms, solar installations, and transmission lines all fall victim to excessive regulatory delays and litigation.” This lawsuit will only obstruct investments to update our infrastructure that desperately needs modernization.
Cory Gardner, former U.S. Senator from Colorado, echoed the need for investments for America’s energy infrastructure, noting that “seventy percent of the U.S. electric grid is 25 years old or older, making it vulnerable to severe weather events and cyber-attacks.” The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) rated our energy infrastructure a D+ in their latest 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.
Upgrading our infrastructure will be costly, but not as costly as not upgrading. Energy interruptions have significant costs on U.S. industries and consumers. Even the briefest power outage raises production costs and disrupts supply chains. If we’re serious about securing America’s energy future, we must stay true to the free-market principles that encourage innovation, diversification, and choice.
This state-led lawsuit risks crossing the line from appropriate scrutiny to market interference, ironically undermining the very energy abundance we all support. The path forward is to dismiss this lawsuit and let the market continue doing what it does best: responding to consumer demand and rewarding innovation. That’s how we keep energy affordable, reliable, and truly American.
Matt Kandrach is the President of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy.
